Doesn’t explain why white Hispanics receive affirmative action benefits.
I think it’s time we all listened to this to cool off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FbkTX2bnis
@wiseGuy Now that I’m done watching SNL I can getting back to the second most amusing thing tonight. So, you’re telling me that a bulge bracket firm like Morgan Stanley pays a quarter of what other similar firms such as Goldman Sachs pays. Funny, that is not my experience at all and I have been at this a lot longer than you.
You say you couldn’t get an interview with GS or JPM because you were from Cornell? It is my experience that if you are a top PhD prospect from ANY of a number of schools - not just HYSPM then you would be sought after by a number of top firms including firms like D.E. Shaw. They just want smart and they don’t care where they find it.
But let’s accept what you’ve claimed for a moment, that GS and JPM only hire from HPYSM and C, then it’s your own friggin fault that you didn’t get accepted into one of these programs, right? You did your undergrad at a top school but you couldn’t make it to one of your idealized schools because you didn’t cut it. No URM took your PhD spot, right? So stop whining about your fantasy that your friends are making four times what you make because of AA.
I don’t get involved in hiring at your level but I seem to recall that salaries were around $100-120k for a PhD with a bonus of up to $80k depending on how you performed and how well the firm did that year. Obviously, things can move up from there but it’s person dependent and I’ve never heard of recent PhD’s making $3.2 million as you claim your friends are doing. Certainly that is not happening at JPM. I don’t know about GS but I can find out with a quick phone call.
This is actually rapidly going from amusing to tedious and you are co-opting a thread where others want to rationally discuss their views about AA, why don’t you do everyone a favor and take your fantasies elsewhere?
It’s been discussed to death.
Haven’t u all figured out yet that there is absolutely nothing new to debate until the next SCOTUS decision.
hey @Falcon1 can you hook me up with an internship. Thanks.
@voiceofreason66 Okay, I’ll stop. It’s just that it’s hard to listen to a person’s argument when there are obvious doubts in the stories being spewed to support their argument. But whatever, to each their own.
GMT What is the argument against the mismatch theory that has been argued to death? If it is that students going to elite schools graduate college at 95% in 6 years that is not an argument against the mismatch theory that fabrizio and I have been discussing.
If high schools decided to lower its requirements to obtain a diploma which now makes possible for 95% who attends to receive a diploma would we have really solved the high school dropout problem? We would now only have 5% high school dropout rate. Never mind that 30% of the graduates can’t read, write or do simple math but they all can put an “X” on a dotted line to sign a contract that they cannot read.
What is happening at colleges are not as drastic as the above example, but it is similar in that mismatched students are taking the less difficult path to graduate when many who start their college life wanted to obtain STEM degrees. Persistence to graduate is not the same as persistence to graduate in the field that one wants.
As fabrizio has pointed out that when high school academic achievement is taken into consideration, the research shows that the rate of switching out of STEM is about the same for ALL races. When huge preferences are given in the admission process the STEM switch rate increases dramatically. This is true at elite institutions as well as lower tier schools. Others have coined a variation of the mismatch theory and called it “relative deprivation theory”.
If you mean that it’s obvious the “mismatch is bull----!” crowd has absolutely no alternative explanation to the facts I’ve repeatedly brought up and simply won’t admit it, then yes, it has been discussed to death.
@voice, you’ve been on CC for only half a year. There are entire threads on mismatch theory that were argued to death, when the book first came out years ago.
GMT the arguments I have seen focused on the high overall graduation rates of high preference URM at elite colleges. But nothing about the high turnover rates of those same students from STEM to non-STEM. Also there is little discussion about the lower college grades and class rankings of high preference students compared to the rest of the student body. There was no information about the level of income of the high preference students compared to the rest of the student body and any cross studies with similar levels of academic achievement at other “lower tier” institutions.
The information that comes close is about HCBUs and their graduation rates and persistence in STEM compared to elite schools.
Please point me to the threads that deal with the above issues that help me understand why there are so many people who dispute fabrizio’s mismatch theory but can’t seem to articulate the rationale.
fabrizio has been around for quite a long time and s/he doesn’t believe there has been an adequate answer and since I have been on CC there seems not to be an adequate answer. Even you who I agree with on many issues haven’t provided a cogent argument as well.
On September 25,2014 the field poll in California showed 70 per cent of asians in California and 65 per cent of people overall supported Affirmative Action in education. In the poll only 13 per cent of the Asians were against AA. That is over a 5 to 1 support among the asian electorate for affirmative action in education. It is interesting that there is so much anti AA sentiment in this thread when it doesn’t express the sentiment of the electorate at least in California
- Ever heard of Proposition 209?
- Ever heard of SCA 5?
[From glancing at the first few pages of this thread from 2012](Mismatch caused by racial preferences - Parents Forum - College Confidential Forums), it looks like @voiceofreason66 's assessment is correct: people dismiss mismatch by saying “but the overall graduation rates are high, so where’s the mismatch?” I agree that it’s “argued to death” in the sense that people who disagree with mismatch have absolutely no alternative explanation to the facts. They can only say it’s not relevant or otherwise blow smoke to hide the issue.
How do you think Prop 209 would do today? It is certainly not supported by the current electorate or even the majority of the California legislature. If the electorate were allowed to vote on SCA 5 it would pass by a landslide. Sorry but you are in a very small minority. 75 per cent of California Senators supported it.
I think Proposition 209 would still pass today and easily. [What you don’t realize is that polls on affirmative action vary depending on how you word the questions.](In U.S., Most Reject Considering Race in College Admissions) “Affirmative action” usually gets strong support. “Racial preferences” / “preferential treatment” does not.
In actuality, you are in the minority. California wasn’t an outlier. Similar initiatives passed in Washington, Michigan, Nebraska, and Arizona, almost always with 58% or more in favor of removing racial preferences from the public sector.
What you dont understand is 61 per cent of asians and 74 per cent of latinos voted against Proposition 209 . There are a lot more hispanics in California now than 20 years ago when proposition 209 was voted upon. If you are so certain of your position there should be absolutely no need to block a vote on SCA 5 which would allow affirmative action. The vast majority of asians understand AA and support it . You currently represent a small minority position
With one exception (Colorado), your side has lost at the ballot every time this issue has been put to the voters, so your arrogance is rather amusing. But let’s set that aside for now and talk about how the vote was “blocked.”
Gee, who blocked it? Asian American activists. Hmm, this poses a problem for you, doesn’t it? Legislators are accountable to their constituents, but that doesn’t mean they have to accede to every individual whim. If Asian Americans in California so overwhelmingly support racial preferences (or excuse me, cough “affirmative action”), and Asian Americans who oppose racial preferences are such a small minority, why did the California state legislators back off? If 61% of the Asian Americans in my constituency are for “affirmative action,” why do I have to side with the 39% who are against it?
Hmm, maybe this is where you should go take a look at that Gallup poll more carefully and see how even for “minorities,” results can differ wildly depending on whether you call it “affirmative action” or what it actually is, racial preferences.
It is not the Gallup poll it is the field poll It is also currently not 39 per cent but 13 per cent of asians against AA. Please try to be more careful Asian american legislators blocked the California electorate from considering AA. If you are so sure of your position let the electorate decide. Feel free to write California legislators. Many hispanics and blacks don’t have the money to game the system and want a fair shot at an education.
I am aware of that poll. Its results are very similar to Gallup’s when Gallup phrased the question with “affirmative action.” As I said, results vary depending on how you phrase the question. Phrase it as “racial preferences” or “preferential treatment,” and you see a very, very, very different picture.
Legislators are accountable to their constituents. If it’s such a small minority of Asian Americans who are against “affirmative action,” as you claim, then these legislators should not have felt the need to go against the will of the majority and placate this small, insignificant minority. So why did they block it? Where was the overwhelming Asian American majority on this issue? They did not contact their legislators and urge them to vote for SCA 5?
Or maybe, just maybe, the majority urged them to block it? Nah. 69% in the Field Poll support “affirmative action,” so clearly, these legislators felt threatened by a 13% minority. That makes total sense.
florida26 Are you saying that having a race neutral admission policy is discriminatory? Why do you think that fair shot at an education means that blacks and hispanics need huge racial preferences? There is not one college or university that is allowed to discriminate based upon race except when hispanics and blacks want to game the system to get preferential admissions treatment or in the case of Washington and Lee, white students who get preferential admissions over Asians. That is wrong.